|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
| << October12, 2004 - [India Thinkers Net]SANSAD Announcing a public event on Kashmir |
October13, 2004 - [India Thinkers Net]Re-Parikkar -Togadia doctrine ( IK Shukla) >> |
|
From: Satinath Choudhary <satichou@yahoo.com> Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:35am Subject: Re: [indiadebates] RESERVATIONS---YOUR IDEAS PLEASE <amazingindian11@yahoo.com> Dear Shivam, Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 Subject: [indiadebates] RESERVATIONS---YOUR IDEAS PLEASE <amazingindian11@y...> > > From: amazing indian <amazingindian11@y...> > Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:03pm > Subject: RESERVATIONS---YOUR IDEAS PLEASE > > Hello , > > how many of you people support reservations??? Previously reservation has been justified on the basis of ???charity???, as ???helping hand??? to the oppressed segments. That basis of reservation needs to be changed. It is needed to prevent the society from sinking into feudalistic rules of a couple of castes, reducing the rest to serfdom. If you like feudal establishments with a lot of serfs you have to go find a place where people don??™t mind living like serfs. If you want to coexistence in a society of equals, in harmonious, amicable and honorable fashion, as brothers and sisters, you need to accept quota system as a way of life. The Swiss have been living with an attitude of power sharing for more than a century, you need to learn things from them and other countries in Europe. Power sharing in Swiss bureaucratic structure: ???We (Swiss) have a strongly enforced proportional rule that leads to political quotas. An unwritten rule says that two of the members of the Federal Council should be of French- and one of Italian-speaking origin, and over time, this has been observed. In federal commissions of experts, or in parliamentary committees, linguistic proportions are observed more than any other proportional rule. The consequences of this proportional or quota rule can thus have astonishing results for the fair representation of different cultural minorities.???[9] The table shown below is suggestive of quite a strict quota system used in Switzerland. Proportional Representation of linguistic groups (percentages) in certain federal jobs in Switzerland[10]: Representation German French Italian Population (Swiss citizen only) 74.5 20.1 4.0 Federal Administration: All personnel 76.5 15.4 5.2 Senior staff 73.6 20.9 3.5 Top Management 78.8 19.0 2.2 Expert Committees 76.9 20.0 3.1 Presidents of committees of the National Council 76.0 20.0 3.1 In the above table, the sums of various rows do not seem to add to 100, as they should. This discrepancy may possibly be on account of some positions going to the Romansch speaking individuals ??“ I do not know. I have simply copied the table from the book by Wolf Linder. The above table should contribute towards debunking the myth that quota system leads to inefficiencies. With their highest standard of living, today nobody is ???shining more???, and ???feeling better???, than the Swiss. Nothing reduces efficiency more than various connivances that the ???haves??? perpetrate in order to continue their hegemony and to keep the ???do not haves??? from breaking their shackles of misery and despair. If the law is changed to disallow over-representation of any and all groups at all levels of power, the ???haves??? will have no room for conniving ??“ their game of treachery and deceits will be over! In fact, then, we won??™t have any ???haves??? and ???do not haves???. For all positions of power we need equi-distribution among various groups first, relatively better competency within each of the groups next. > > can some body tell me why do we need reservations?? > > is it because of the financial backwardness of some > sections of the > people??? It is to prevent whole group of people (castes) from becoming feudal lords that will subjugate other groups (lower castes), making sure they stay down and under. Within the ruling group also there may be some poor. But they would generally have better chance of getting out of their poverty, thanks to their caste connection with the other powerful individuals within their caste. The poor among the lower castes carry double burden of poverty as well as birth in a lower caste. Reservations are needed to lighten the latter burden and make the playing field a bit more even. > > doesnt anybody realise that people who dont have > reservations are > also poor.. Everybody is not rich (at least they > cannot afford good > education and many other things).... > > and if anybody can see whats happenning... Only > people who have used > the reservations once.. Keep using it again and > again.. Not many new > people can reallly use these reservations..(because > of > corruption etc etc) For more justifications of reservation, please see the article below. > > if the father uses the reservation and gets a job.. > Yy does his son > need reservation??? > > and if a person uses his reservation to get > education ... Yy does he > need reservations to find a job???? > > does this mean the poor people who dont reservations > should end up in > poverty??? > > Shivam <shivamvij@g...> wrote: > > Dear all, > Please read this appeal and donate generously. And > do pass this on to > others. > Thanks > Shivam > > > > > AN APPEAL TO HELP DALIT SOCIAL REVOLUTIONARIES > > Ayanreddiyapatti village in Virudhanagar district is > a typical > southern Tamil Nadu village. Here, for a long time > Dalits (mostly of > the Parayar sub-caste) could not wear footwear, > could not wear pants, > could not take water from common wells. > Ayanreddiyapatti has 100 Dalit > families, 1000 families of Naickers, and 500 > Reddiars families. While > the Reddiars did not bother the Dalits much, the > Naickers' sole > purpose in life seemed to be feudally lord over the > Dalits. It was not > as if the Dalits were extremely impoverished. > Several dalits owned > cultivable land, many held government jobs, some > were into business, > and their education level was generally higher than > that of the caste > Hindus in the village. > > Since the 1990s, the Naickers started taunting and > harassing the > dalits even more, seeing that the educated dalits > were resisting their > oppression and several untouchability practices. The > Naickers would > steal the domestic animals and poultry belonging to > Dalits, ravage > their fields just ahead of harvest time, steal their > crops, and > generally make life miserable for Dalits. Unlike the > Dalits who were > moving into modernity, the Naickers only > > > > Need for a paradigm shift from ???winning power??? to ???power sharing??? Philosophical basis for reservation and other power sharing methods need change. Steps like affirmative action in the USA and reservation or quota system of India have been justified as ???helping hand??? or charities for those lagging behind. Charities cannot be for ever, nor can they be ???demanded??? as a matter of right even if the ???charity??? is incorporated in the constitution or in an act. At the same time, since money begets more money and power begets more power; we can see that money and power have a tendency to accumulate among individuals and groups, resulting in debilitating disparities and turmoil. We would thus be jumping back and forth from disparity and turmoil to temporary measures of charities and helping hand. If we want to make concerted progress towards prosperity with peace and amity, we need to re-examine the philosophical moorings of affirmative action and quotas and see if they can be better established and immunized from being whittled away. We must also keep in mind that prime reason behind the support for Sangh Parivar??™s hate-propagation and obscurantist and jingoistic pronouncements and actions find support among the powerful educated upper caste communities solely because of their thinking that BJP/RSS is most committed to protect hegemony of the upper caste. Aside from self-interest, the basis of the justification of their hegemony lies in their firm belief in the merit of merit-system. Merit-system runs counter to the concepts of social justice, reservation, quota system, affirmative action, whatever we may call it. Merit system is based on the concept of ???equal rights of individuals???. Both of these concepts, (the merit system and ???equal rights of individuals???) have been held axiomatic and unquestionable in India as well as in the USA. Such beliefs make reconciling of proponents and opponents of affirmative actions difficult. In India, the ???meritorious??? group relented a little on merit in 1932 in bargaining effort, combined with hostage taking of Gandhi by Gandhi, in an effort to ward off political equality of the Depressed Class via Separate Electorate System (SES) of election. In the USA, during distressing civil rights movement the powers that be reluctantly conceded relaxation of the merit system and called it called it ???affirmative action???, but at the same time they inserted a sentence declaring ???quotas??? to be taboo without giving any reasons. So in both these countries, the merit system and ???equal rights of individuals??? still holds supreme; relaxing them a tiny bit only ease stresses caused by it, that too for as little time as possible. We need to examine and see if these concepts should really be held in axiomatic fashion. The rule of ???survival of the fittest??? is the law of jungle. The fittest survive and the weaker ones perish ??“ that??™s how species have been evolving. Among the surviving ones they create a hierarchy. Among humans living by the swords (on the basis of survival of the fittest) many of the weak ones have been eliminated and those living, lived in a hierarchy of kings, feudal lords and serfs, with several other layers of intermediaries. However, we have come to stage when perishing of the weak is not happening, nor is it acceptable any more. As a matter of fact, practically everywhere it is the weaker ones that are multiplying faster. So, continued oppressive condition of the miserable ones is simply going to keep on adding more miserable ones faster than joyous ones to a world of increasing misery over happiness. A world full of kings and feudal lords is also no longer acceptable. We have to coexist together without kings and feudal lordships. Hence the rules of survival need to be changed to those for a more amicable coexistence. The rules have to be made conducive not only for coexistence; we need to be able to coexist in a more equalitarian fashion, harmoniously, amicably and honorably like brothers and sisters. Ways have to be found for ???sharing??? power rather than ???winning??? power and privileges. Sharing of power will prevent concentration of power in the hands of a person or a group. As for distribution of positions of power via election, FPTP (first-past-the-post) system happens to be very unjust electoral system, tilted heavily in favor of the more powerful group or party. It is the most powerful impediment to equitable sharing of elective power. Most countries in Europe and more than half of democratic countries in the world use list-PR as the method of choice for equitable distribution of elective power. In India it was obvious to Muslims and Depressed Class from the beginning of the freedom movement that they won??™t be able to get their due share of seats in legislative bodies under the election system in vogue in the UK ??“ FPTP system. Somehow they came upon the idea of Separate Electorate System (SES). I don??™t know who the originator of the idea of SES was. It??™s not a bad idea at all. It would have been far better than FPTP. The idea was for different communal segments like Muslims, Depressed Class, Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, to be awarded numbers of seats in proportion to their population, which they would have filled via separate lections held for those communities. Elections for different communities could be held at the same time, but members of various communities would have voted in their own distinct boxes, and counting would have been separate. I can??™t see what was so terrible about it, except that each of the communal groups??™ election would have contained all of the flaws of FPTP, which are many, as discussed in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/india-unity/files/. To my mind SES is not at all as good as list-PR (list-Proportional Representation) system and its various variations; however, SES would have been far better than FPTP or FPTP with joint electorate that currently reserves some seats for SC/ST candidates. Most importantly, it would have prevented Muslim demand for a separate nation. Under SES nearly a third of the seats at the federal level would have gone to Muslims, with at least another third to the Depressed Class, leaving less than a third in the hands of the upper caste Hindu communities. The upper caste Hindus could not gulp it. They latched on to the word ???separate??? of SES, and claimed that it (SES) would somehow lead to division of the country. I think they (the Hindus, particularly the Sanghi variety) actually had started harboring desires for division. They could see that in the undivided India with Muslims constituting a third of its total population, and with possible alliance between Muslims and the lower castes, the upper caste Hindus would lose political clout, no matter whether we used SES or FPTP. They (the upper caste Hindus) would have lost power immediately under SES, while somewhat later under FPTP. Without Muslims, I guess the upper caste Hindus felt they would be able to manipulate the lower castes for ever. So in public they took the posture that they did not want division but they won??™t agree to a very sane demand for SES. It is very unfortunate that apparently nobody on the Indian landscape seemed to know anything about list-PR. This is obvious from a study of the debates of the Constituent Assembly. Two Muslim MPs had sought amendments suggesting Cumulative Voting System (CVS), which is a semi-PR system, not at all as good as list-PR. Dr. Ambedkar voted for it. But they (Ambedkar and the Muslim MPs) were voted down by the Constituent Assembly. So, how do I feel that Ambedkar would have been able to win acceptance of list-PR from the upper caste Hindus? The main battle with regard to electoral system was fought in 1932 in the Round Table conference and from Poona jail where Gandhi was incarcerated for reneging on the agreement arrived at the second Round Table conference. Ambedkar lost that battle, in spite of help from the British and Muslims and Sikhs when Gandhi held himself as a hostage. It was then Gandhi, with all of the upper caste Hindus arrayed behind him, against Muslim community, Sikhs, Depressed Class, as well as the might of the British Empire. But saintly Gandhi won with his hostage trick. Later in the Constituent Assembly of divided India, the two sides were much more lopsided ??“ the upper caste Hindus held a vast majority. Still, if Ambedkar had known about list-PR, I think he would not have accepted voting defeat in the Constituent Assembly lying down (as he did in case of Cumulative Voting System). He would have raised hell in favor of list-PR, as it is far superior compared to CVS, SES, and FPTP with joint electorate. Who knows what would have happened? May be Nehru might have thrown his weight in favor of list-PR because of its sound logic, and as it (list-PR) does not contain a word like ???separate??? that was wrongly maligned and magnified. Any way, it??™s all about ???what if??? of the past, which may not be directly helpful while thinking about the future. Yet, an understanding of the past can be helpful in pursuing our goals for the future. Let us now turn our attention towards ???what if??? for the present and the future. Conceptually list-PR is far superior compared to SES. Segmentation for the sake of voting is not rigid or permanent in case of list-PR. It (segmentation) would change with exigency of time under list-PR. People would form new parties based on needs of that period. Open-list-PR is an improvement of the ideas embodied in list-PR. Even open-list-PR can be further improved. A discussion of the same is given in ???Curing Cancer of India ??¦??? at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/india-unity/files/. Actually, I had wanted focus more on the positions of power and privilege distributed in the society on the basis of selections. But I got caught up in the discussion of distribution of power via elections. In the USA, India, The United Kingdom, etc., the techniques used for selection are geared more towards ???winning" than ???sharing???. In selection processes, the swords have been replaced by pen. The problems emanating from ???winning??? positions of power by virtue of swords are going to continue if the ???swords??? are simply replaced by ???pens???. The system of ???winning??? battles of swords gave rise to kings and feudal war lords. The system of ???winning??? battles of pens would also give rise to feudalism of a different kind where the power of advantaged group will continue to multiply, and the rest will be reduced to wretched serfdom. From what we know of evolution of the universe from the big bang, matter was more of less uniformly distributed over a rapidly expanding universe. But gravitational pull has led to clumping of matter in the form of various galaxies and nebulae. We also know that money begets more money, as well as power begets more power. This helps clumping during selection as well as election processes. As for the election process under FPTP, we know that the most powerful group and party are greatly advantaged. This leads to clumping of smaller parties around the two largest parties, with smaller parties gradually losing their separate identity, and emergence of a two party system. Thus a powerful clump is likely to quickly emerge that would dominate the rest of the society, which is what has happened. The so called ???merit system??? wherein one ???wins??? positions of power by selections in duels of pens (replacing swords of the yester years), also favors concentration of power in the hands of a few powerful groups, just as living by swords did. During selection the more powerful and numerous group is able to select more of its own kind (even if we discount any unfair favoritism of the powerful). Natural favoritism instincts only go to worsen the disparities. Thus election as well as selection processes may end up favoring the same group (as they do in India), leading to overwhelming imbalance of power in the hands of few. This is precisely what has been happening in India as well as in the USA. In India we have leased a little time by virtue of defeating the Nazi BSP/RSS party in this year??™s election. In the USA, we have to see whether we are going to gain some respite by defeat of Bush. Unless people are able to change rules of selection and election in fundamental ways, to saner ways of sharing, both these countries are going to be faced with a lot of trouble and turmoil. The changes needed have to be of fundamental nature, not just cosmetic nature, to slightly relax disparities. As mentioned earlier, during hey days of civil rights movement a relatively more flexible power sharing measure was reluctantly conceded (dubbed affirmative action) by the powers that be in the USA, but at the same time they inserted a sentence declaring ???quotas??? to be taboo without giving any reasons. The result was a dilution of the affirmative action with the passage of time and denigration and condemnation of any measure towards sharing as ???quota???. They have whittled it (affirmative action) down, first with the Supreme Court??™s decision on Bakke case of 1978. Next, affirmative action met another setback in the proposition 209 passed by California referendum. In Grutter v. Bollinger decision of 2003 we see a halfhearted effort by the conservative Supreme Court to check total erosion of affirmative action programs, particularly in colleges. It??™s all based on weakening of the pro-affirmative action Civil rights bill by the sentence opposing ???quota???. It is not difficult for the opponents of affirmative action to prove that all affirmative action steps are steps in the direction of ???quota??? which has been vilified without giving a single justification. In India too the story of equitable sharing in selection process has not been very different. Even though the word quota has not been disparaged as much as in the USA, the powers that be has always tried to malign it as a source of inefficiency and equated it to a crutch that should be discarded as soon as possible, lest the recipients of benefit would be hobbled for ever. Since the implementation of job and admission quotas have remained in the hands of the upper castes, which has always abhorred it, they never allowed the quotas to be filled, particularly at higher levels that matter. The powers that be has also touted and ballyhooed ???merit system??? so much, even the recipients of benefit of reservation are made to feel guilty of getting their share in violation of merit. It may be worth mentioning that in spite of the fact that in the US they have always denigrated ???quota???, they have achieved more equality since the passage of their Civil Rights Acts of 60??™s than what India has achieved since ratification of its constitution in 1950. I think one big reason is that in the US the ???haves??? (whites) are around 70%, who do not worry about losing their hegemony by the betterment of the ???have not???. On the other hand, the haves (the upper caste) in India are a small minority of 15%, who worry a lot about losing their hegemony if and when the lower castes make considerable improvement educationally and economically. In India public education system has been almost destroyed. In the US, while the education system could be improved much more, at least they have not been dismantled. Moreover, lack of blacks in any group can be quite conspicuous. Lack of the lower castes in any institution in India cannot be detected unless one snoops around for statistics. The powers that be try to prevent caste-based statistics as much as possible. Another reason for greater equality of African Americans and Hispanics compared to whites may lie in overall better standard of living. If someone suggests that the greater improvement in the USA is on account of a more laissez-faire implementation of affirmative action than ???quota??? system, I would beg to disagree. In India even the supposedly strict quota system has been manipulated so much by the more severely biased upper caste, they would totally avoid implementation of a more laissez-faire affirmative action plans. Still others blame India??™s lack of progress on its quota system, and alleged resulting inefficiency. That??™s a travesty. First of all, reservations have never been fully filled. Moreover, should the blame go to the 10-15% Dalits or 85-90% upper caste individuals filling most positions of power? The truth is that a country cannot make strides when 10-15% of its population holds all power and tries to keep the 85-90% of its population impoverished so that its (upper caste??™s) hegemony cannot be challenged. The problem lies more in 10-15% holding inordinate power, with vested interest in keeping the rest down. This can be seen from the fact that often moneys granted for education and developmental work geared for the ???have not??? remains unspent. It points towards lack of interest on the part of the relevant officials in spending the granted moneys. Why so? Well, do we think that the ???haves??? are above caste-ism? This may happen in internecine manner even among the lower castes, i.e., one lower caste discriminating against another. That is why it is important to implement laws that will insure no caste grabbing more seats at any level than its due share (proportion of population). The only way to prevent one caste from trying to oppress other castes is to insure that no leader or official is able to allow over-representation of any caste or group at any level of employment. Castes can be laid down over a spectrum of educational development, with their widths in proportion to respective population. For 10 positions to be filled, the whole spectrum may be divided into 10 parts, and a position assigned to each. Likewise, for 50 positions to be filled, the spectrum may be divided into 50 parts, and a position assigned to each. Important thing to keep in mind is that no caste, no religion, no region, no identifiable group, should be over-represented at any level of power. That will automatically guarantee that each segment of the society, each religion, each region, all identifiable groups, get their due share of power. Various mechanisms can be developed to achieve the stated objective. Mathematical formulas can be laid down to compute diversity index in any office or company. For companies tax incentive may be provided for improving their diversity index. In civil services too the recruiters may be given bonuses for improving diversity indices for various levels of employment. I will elaborate the concept of diversity index separately. We must keep in mind that if there is a will, there is always a way. When people are satisfied with the philosophical underpinning of a concept, there may be a greater degree of will. A fundamental change is needed in the philosophical moorings for a more even distribution of power, both in case of positions filled by election as well as by selection. Currently India as well as USA operates under the rule of ???equal rights for individuals???. It needs to be replaced by ???equal rights for groups???. One can show that the former can, and often does, lead to colonial conditions wherein a small group may end up becoming feudal lords or colonial masters. It is easy to see that equal rights for individuals is nothing but a formula for ???winning??? positions of power via duels of pen. Just like the concept of ???might (of swords) is right??? leads to feudalism and imperialism, ???might of pens is right??? is bound to lead to feudalism and imperialism. On the other hand, the concept of ???equal rights??? of groups leads to ???equal (or equitable) power??? for all groups. In other words, number of positions of power filled by groups should be in proportion to population of the groups. This concept, when applied to smaller and smaller groups, leads to the democratic concept of equal power for all individuals. Thus we can see that ???equal rights of individuals??? leads towards decrepit system of feudalism, whereas ???equal rights of groups??? leads to a more egalitarian concept of democracy. I think, once philosophical mooring of a concept has been firmly established, it becomes easier for a person to accept it even if it results in diminution of his/her power and privileges. It does not mean that people are going to give up their earlier advantages easily. But the resistance they put up to redistribution of power may diminish. Even the vigor used by the protagonists of the redistribution will increase with their conviction placed on a firm philosophical footing. These concepts are not my original contributions. They are already in vogue in many of the West European countries like Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, Scandinavian countries, Germany, etc. On account of multicultural multi-lingual character, the concepts are more obvious in Switzerland and Belgium than in other countries. Group equality in these countries has resulted in their more humane social and consociational democracies, with enormous social security, health insurance and universal free education through colleges. At the root of their more humane consociational democracies lie well designed PR system of elections. Thus we see that in selection processes, ???equal rights of groups??? must have primacy over ???equal rights of individuals??? for harmonious, amicable and honorable coexistence as brothers and sisters. Scope of reservation or quotas need to be increase to 100% -- to each segment in proportion to its population. Reservation should not be stigmatized or considered to be charities that need to be wound down as soon as possible. Effort has to be made to cover all identifiable segments of the society, as far as practicable. However, we must also understand that all of the above have to be achieved via legislations passed by the parliament. This is not going to happen unless and until in the parliament itself becomes equalized, wherein all groups are represented in an equitable fashion. For this to happen we must use a good PR system of election. The best of such systems that I can think of, and how to achieve it, has been described in ???Curing Cancer (BJP/RSS) of India ??¦??? at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/india-unity/files/. Regards, Satinath |
|
| << October12, 2004 - [India Thinkers Net]SANSAD Announcing a public event on Kashmir |
October13, 2004 - [India Thinkers Net]Re-Parikkar -Togadia doctrine ( IK Shukla) >> |
|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on India Thinkers Net |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |